KANHAIYALAL RAMESHWAR DAS,KOTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

u/s 274 of the Act\nshould specifically state as to whether penalty is being proposed for concealment\nof particulars of income or inaccurate particulars of income. In the present case\nnotice under section 274 dated 25/3/2015 enclosed at paper book page 16 reads\nas under: -\n\"Penalty Notice Under Section 274. Read with Section 271

KANHAIYALAL RAMESHWAR DAS,KOTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

u/s 274 of the Act\nshould specifically state as to whether penalty is being proposed for concealment\nof particulars of income or inaccurate particulars of income. In the present case\nnotice under section 274 dated 25/3/2015 enclosed at paper book page 16 reads\nas under: -\n“Penalty Notice Under Section 274. Read with Section 271

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR vs. JITENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

9 Shri Nath Corporation & Ors., Jaipur. Accordingly as there is no adverse impact on the tax liability due to the change of head of income in the present case, considering the explanation 4 in sub section (1) in the section 271 no penalty is leviable due to this aspect. Further, regarding the surrender during survey, the penalty was initiated

M/S RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated hereinabove

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

section 271(1)(c), thus, Assessing Officer was not clear whether he intended to levy a penalty on assessee for concealment of particulars of his income or furnishing inaccurate particulars, Tribunal was justified in quashing penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) initiated against assessee. 4. It is further submitted that in Para 9

M/S RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated\nhereinabove

9-13)\nWhere AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) without specifying as to whether\npenalty was being levied on account of concealment of income or for reason that assessee\nhad furnished inaccurate particulars, impugned penalty order had rightly been set aside by\nTribunal.\n\nPCIT Vs. Shyam Sunder Jindal (2024) 462 ITR 501 (Delhi) (HC)(Case laws\ncompilation

SUPERFINE HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6,, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

u/s 271(1)(c) vide order\ndated 27.03.2022.\n8.1 Before us, the ld. A/R has submitted that in the show cause notice\nissued under section 274 read with section 271 read with section\n271(1)(c) of the IT Act the AO has not specified the ground for initiation\nof penalty proceedings whether it is for concealment of income

GHANSHYAM TAK,NAYA GHAR AJMER vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE AJMER, JAIPUR ROAD AJMER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

271 shall be imposed upon the assessee in respect of the undisclosed income referred to in sub-section (1) [or sub-section (1A)]. (3) The provisions of sections 274 and 275 shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to the penalty referred to in this section. Explanation.-For the purposes of this section,- (a) “specified date” means

RAJ KUMAR JAIN,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE – 2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

271 and 275 read with the section u/s 271AAB of the IT Act and a penalty notice was issued accordingly. You are hereby allowed further opportunity of being heard and to show cause why an order imposing penalty on you should not be made u/s 271AAB of the Income Tax Act 1961. If you do not wish to avail yourself

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 JAIPUR vs. SHRI PRAKASH CHAND SHARMA, C-42, GOKUL PATH VAISHALI NAGAR, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ao On The Charge Of Concealment Of Income.

section u/s 271(1)(c) the penalty is initiated [i.e. whether penalty initiated for concealment t of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.] 5.6 Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the judgment of Sweta Construction (ITA 534/2008) has made observ 9

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 JAIPUR vs. SHRI PRAKASH CHAND SHARMA, C-42, GOKUL PATH VAISHALI NAGAR, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ao On The Charge Of Concealment Of Income.

section u/s 271(1)(c) the penalty is initiated [i.e. whether penalty initiated for concealment t of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.] 5.6 Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the judgment of Sweta Construction (ITA 534/2008) has made observ 9

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 JAIPUR vs. SHRI PRAKASH CHAND SHARMA, C-42, GOKUL PATH VAISHALI NAGAR, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ao On The Charge Of Concealment Of Income.

section u/s 271(1)(c) the penalty is initiated [i.e. whether penalty initiated for concealment t of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.] 5.6 Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the judgment of Sweta Construction (ITA 534/2008) has made observ 9

VAIBHAV GLOBAL LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5, JAIPUR

In the result, the penalty is directed to be deleted and appeal of the assessee is allowed

9. On appeal by the assessee, the ld. CIT(A) has stated that Explanation 7 to Section 271(1)(c) of the Act is applicable as the assessee has not been able to prove that good faith and due diligence has been followed and the penalty levied U/s

VAIBHAV GLOBAL LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5, JAIPUR

In the result, the penalty is directed to be deleted and appeal of the assessee is allowed

9. On appeal by the assessee, the ld. CIT(A) has stated that Explanation 7 to Section 271(1)(c) of the Act is applicable as the assessee has not been able to prove that good faith and due diligence has been followed and the penalty levied U/s

RAMESH CHAND BANSAL,BEAWAR vs. DCIT, AJMER

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

section 274 – seeking to impose penalty u/s 271 (1)(c) – contents of the notice – requirements of. Assessee is a trust and running a school – income of assessee is exempt u/s 10(23C)(iiiad) – Search was conducted in the group case of assessee – notice issued u/s 153C – returned file in response thereto – assessment completed u/s 153A on the returned loss – assessment

NARAYAN HEIGHTS & TOWERS,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Hearing Of Appeal.”

u/s. 274 of the Act should specifically state as to whether penalty is being proposed to be imposed for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Hon’ble High court has further laid down that certain printed form where all the grounds given in section 271 are given would not satisfy the requirement

R P WOOD PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,AJMER vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE AJMER, JAIPUR ROAD AJMER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

271 shall be imposed upon the assessee in respect of the undisclosed income referred to in sub-section (1) [or sub-section (1A)]. (3) The provisions of sections 274 and 275 shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to the penalty referred to in this section. Explanation.-For the purposes of this section,- (a) “specified date” means

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR vs. SHRI KAMAL SETHIA, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

9 (Punjab & Haryana) and Chennai Tribunal in case of ACIT, Central Circle 11(5) vs. Smt. J. Mythili. Finally, the AO has given his conclusive finding at para 7 of his penalty order wherein it has been stated that in view of the above cited and facts and legal position, the assessee is liable for penalty u/s 271

R P WOOD PRODUCTS PVT LTD ,NAYA BAZAR AJMER vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE AJMER, JAIPUR ROAD AJMER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

9 R. P. Wood Products Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT revised return pursuant to filing of return in response to notice under section 153A of the Act and the provisions of section 139(5) are equally applicable in case of return filed pursuant to notice under section 153A of the Act. It is well settled that assessment proceedings and penalty proceedings

RAKESH KUMAR JAIN,JAIPUR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing Of The Appeal & / Or Modify Any Of The Above Grounds.

9 In the result, the appeal of the appellant is Dismissed.’’ 3.2 During the course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee has raised the additional ground which is reproduced as under:- ‘’The ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the penalty order passed by the AO, notwithstanding the fact that the SCN u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(c) was issued

SMT. SHIPRA JAIN,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the penalty so levied u/s 271(1)(c) is hereby deleted and appeals are allowed

section 271(1)(c) of the Act. In case of Smt. Shipra Jain, he confirmed the levy of penalty on addition of Rs.10 lacs however without giving effect to the order of the Tribunal in quantum proceedings. In case of Sh. Sapan Jain, he confirmed the levy of penalty on the addition which was sustained by the Tribunal but took